Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Constraints on Binarity for the Extreme Oe Variable Star AzV 493

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Chandra non-detection and inconclusive RVs leave AzV 493's extreme companion unconfirmed, but set a few-solar-mass floor if the RV scatter is real.

desk verdict Clean Chandra non-detection and expanded RV series leave the extreme-eccentric binary hypothesis for AzV 493 still unconfirmed; the paper is honest about that and the limits are properly conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.26288 v2 pith:43DRYHVX submitted 2026-06-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

M. S. Oey (1) , Irene Vargas-Salazar (1) , Edmund Hodges-Kluck (2) , Norberto Castro (3) , Michal K. Szymanski (4) , Mario Mateo (1) , Mathieu Renzo (5) , Mark W. Suffak (6)
show 6 more authors
Maxwell Moe (7) ((1) University of Michigan (2) NASA/GSFC (3) AIP Potsdam (4) University of Warsaw (5) University of Arizona (6) University of Wyoming)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords OestarsBehigh-massX-raybinariescircumstellardiskscompactobjectsradialvelocitiesSmallMagellanicCloudvariable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AzV 493 is an extreme early Oe star whose long photometric cycle and disk variability have been interpreted as the signature of a highly eccentric, long-period companion. This paper tests that picture with a Chandra observation timed near the putative 7.3-year periastron and with a substantially enlarged set of radial-velocity measurements. No X-rays are detected, yielding only an upper limit L_X < 2.5 x 10^33 erg s^{-1}, and the RV data remain statistically inconclusive once instrumental heterogeneity is taken into account. If the observed ~34 km s^{-1} semi-amplitude is nevertheless physical, the companion must be at least ~6-8 solar masses for the two candidate periods, favoring a black hole over a neutron star. A recent inversion of the Balmer V/R ratio supplies an additional, qualitative hint of a companion. The work therefore tightens, but does not yet close, the case that this earliest known Oe star hosts a compact remnant.

What carries the argument

The combination of a timed X-ray upper limit with a culled multi-epoch RV data set (cross-correlation against a PoWR model template, normality tests, and Keplerian mass-function evaluation at the two candidate periods and high eccentricity).

What would settle it

A deep X-ray detection (or a secure, instrumentally consistent RV orbit) at the next predicted periastron of either the 7.3- or 14.6-year cycle would confirm or rule out a compact companion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A Chandra/ACIS observation near the predicted 7.3-year periastron of AzV 493 yields only an upper limit L_X < 2.5 x 10^33 erg s^{-1} (0.5-8 keV), while an enlarged, multi-instrument RV data set is statistically inconclusive. Conditional on the RV semi-amplitude of ~34 km s^{-1} being real, the unseen companion mass is bounded from below by ~6 M_odot (7.3 yr) or ~8 M_odot (14.6 yr) under extreme eccentricity and inclination.

Load-bearing premise

That the long photometric cycle truly marks periastron of a highly eccentric binary, so that the Chandra epoch was correctly timed and any real RV scatter can be turned into companion-mass limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neutron-star companion is disfavored relative to a black hole if the RV amplitude is real.
  • The same mass floor applies even if the primary mass is lowered by envelope inflation.
  • Future X-ray observations at the 14.6-year periastron (around 2030) remain the cleanest test of the binary hypothesis.
  • The recent V/R inversion can be used as an independent phase marker for subsequent monitoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the system is single, the long photometric cycle must be driven by an as-yet-unidentified internal disk instability rather than periastron interaction.
  • A confirmed black-hole companion to a ~50 M_odot Oe star would become a rare empirical anchor for models of high-mass Case-A/B mass transfer and natal kicks.
  • The large measurement errors and instrument-to-instrument scatter highlight the need for a homogeneous, high-resolution RV campaign focused solely on He II absorption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Chandra/ACIS non-detection of the extreme SMC Oe star AzV 493 near the putative periastron of a 7.3-year orbit, yielding L_X < 2.5 × 10^33 erg s^{-1} (0.5–8 keV). Combined with 4 new Magellan/M2FS spectra and 20 archival VLT FLAMES/GIRAFFE and X-Shooter spectra, the authors remeasure radial velocities via MCMC cross-correlation against a PoWR template, cull high-error epochs, and apply Anderson-Darling and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests. The tests are formally non-normal but are judged inconclusive because of instrument heterogeneity. If the residual RV semi-amplitude of ~34 km s^{-1} is orbital, companion-mass lower limits of ~6 M_⊙ (7.3 yr) or ~8 M_⊙ (14.6 yr) are obtained under extreme eccentricity and inclination; more moderate parameters push the companion into the black-hole regime. A recent V/R inversion of the Balmer lines is noted as possible additional evidence for a companion. The binary hypothesis therefore remains unconfirmed but is not ruled out.

Significance. AzV 493 is the earliest known Oe star and a candidate post-SN system with extreme eccentricity; a secure companion mass (or a firm non-detection) would constrain binary population-synthesis models, SN kicks, and the formation channels of BeXRBs and black-hole binaries. The new X-ray upper limit is a clean, standard observational product that already excludes luminous transient accretion near the assumed 7.3-year periastron. The expanded RV time series and transparent statistical treatment, even though inconclusive, provide a useful empirical baseline for future monitoring. The work is therefore a solid incremental contribution that keeps an important system on the observational agenda.

major comments (2)
  1. Section 3, mass-limit paragraph and Figure 3: the conversion of the culled-sample RV scatter (~34 km s^{-1}) into companion-mass lower limits is presented only for the extreme corners of the adopted ranges (e = 0.98, i = 90°). A short table or contour plot that maps M_2 over the full (e, i, M_0, P) volume already explored in the text would make the conditional nature of the limits transparent and would allow readers to judge how rapidly the lower bound rises for more probable parameters.
  2. Section 2 and the light-curve discussion: the Chandra epoch is timed to the 7.3-year photometric minimum, yet the authors note that the light curve does not repeat exactly and that flux continued to rise for ~130 days after the observation. A quantitative statement of the phase uncertainty (or a simple Monte-Carlo sampling of the two candidate periods against the observed minima) would strengthen the claim that the non-detection is informative rather than merely a timing miss.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract and Section 4: the X-ray limit is quoted as L_X < 2.5 × 10^33 erg s^{-1} in the abstract and body, but as < 4.2 × 10^33 erg s^{-1} in the concluding paragraph; reconcile the two values.
  2. Table 1: Epoch M2FS1 date string is duplicated ('2017-07-11T2017-07-11'); correct the UTC timestamp.
  3. Figure 2 caption and text: the morphological comparison of Epoch M2FSM with Epoch K would be clearer if the two spectra were over-plotted or if the continuum-normalized residual were shown.
  4. Section 3: the choice of PoWR template parameters (T_eff = 40–42 kK, log g = 2.0–4.4) is stated but not justified against the stellar parameters derived in Paper I; a one-sentence note would suffice.
  5. References: several arXiv-only or in-press citations (e.g., Sen et al. 2026, Lechien et al. 2025) should be updated or flagged as such if the journal style requires it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation of Paper I for photometric periods and stellar parameters; new X-ray upper limit and RV measurements remain independent data products with explicitly conditional mass limits.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2 (X-ray timing) and Section 3 (mass-limit paragraph)]
    "We obtained a Chandra/ACIS observation near the putative periastron for the 7.3-year orbit... Based on the findings in Paper I, we adopt eccentricity e in the range 0.80 – 0.98, inclination i = 45° – 90°, and current primary star mass M0 of 50 M⊙. ... we obtain lower limits on the companion mass of 6 M⊙ and 8 M⊙ for orbital periods P of 7.3 and 14.6 years, respectively."

    The timing of the Chandra epoch and the numerical conversion of the observed RV scatter into companion-mass lower limits rest on the photometric periods, eccentricity, and primary mass reported in Paper I (same lead author). The new data products themselves are independent, and the paper repeatedly flags the results as conditional, so the circularity is only interpretive framing rather than a forced derivation.

full rationale

The paper's core results are a Chandra non-detection (L_X < 2.5e33 erg/s) and a set of new + archival RV measurements whose normality tests are reported as inconclusive. Both are independent of the prior work. The 7.3/14.6 yr periods, eccentricity range, and primary mass used for timing the observation and for converting an assumed 34 km/s semi-amplitude into companion-mass lower limits are taken from Paper I (Oey et al. 2023) and Vargas-Salazar et al. (2025), which share authors. This is ordinary sequential science, not a closed loop: the light-curve periods are externally measured (OGLE), the X-ray limit is a new observation, the RV table is newly reduced, and the mass limits are stated only 'if the observed RV variations are real.' No equation equates a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled. Score 2 reflects the single non-load-bearing self-citation chain for the interpretive framing; the empirical constraints stand on their own.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard X-ray and spectroscopic analysis plus a small set of domain assumptions inherited from Paper I (orbital period, eccentricity range, primary mass). No free parameters are fitted to produce the X-ray limit; the mass limits are derived under stated ranges of e and i and are labeled conditional. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • orbital period (7.28 or 14.55 yr) = 7.28 or 14.55 yr
    Taken from photometric minima in Paper I; the choice of which period is correct directly controls whether the Chandra epoch is near periastron and the numerical mass limits.
  • primary mass M0 = 50 ± 9 M_⊙ (or 25 M_⊙)
    Adopted as 50 M_⊙ (or 25 M_⊙ for inflated-envelope case) from Paper I evolutionary tracks; enters the companion-mass lower limits.
  • RV semi-amplitude upper bound = 34 km s^{-1}
    Taken as 34 km s^{-1} from the culled sample; used only if the variations are assumed real.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The long-term photometric cycle corresponds to periastron passage of a highly eccentric binary.
    Inherited from Paper I and used to time the Chandra observation and to interpret mass limits (Sections 1–2).
  • domain assumption Power-law SED with Γ = 1.4 and NH derived from AV are appropriate for converting count-rate upper limit to L_X.
    Standard BeXRB assumptions stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption He II absorption lines dominate the cross-correlation RV measurement and are free of large systematic disk contamination after culling.
    Stated in Section 3; the authors themselves note residual instrument systematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Binarity for the Extreme Oe Variable Star AzV 493." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43DRYHVX

@misc{pith2026260626288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Binarity for the Extreme Oe Variable Star AzV 493},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43DRYHVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.26288}
}
read the original abstract

The extreme Oe star AzV 493 is known to show unusual photometric and spectroscopic variability that suggest the presence of an unseen companion in a highly eccentric and long-period (7.3 or 14.6-year) orbit. We obtained a Chandra/ACIS observation near the putative periastron for the 7.3-year orbit to test for transient X-ray emission that would confirm its binary nature. Our data only place an upper limit to the X-ray luminosity of L_X < 2.5 x 10^33 erg/s based on the 0.5 - 8 keV flux limit. Additionally, we obtained 4 new spectroscopic observations with the M2FS spectrograph at Magellan and 20 archive FLAMES/GIRAFFE and X-Shooter spectra from ESO/VLT to further constrain the possibility of radial velocity (RV) variation. Statistical analysis of the RV measurements yields inconclusive results regarding the existence of variations. We discuss possible mass limits for a potential companion, which may be a black hole, in the event that the variations are real. The violet-to-red (V/R) Balmer ratio has also recently inverted, which may be a further indication of a companion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. OGLE light curve in I and V shown in black and red, respectively. Dates for our Magellan spectroscopic observations are shown with black dashed lines, and those for X-Shooter data are shown in purple and FLAMES/GIRAFFE in orange. The Chandra observation is indicated by the blue solid line. The gray points show the most recent photometry shifted back by the long-period phase of 14.6 years. The bottom panel shows the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The AzV 493 multi-epoch spectroscopic observations sorted by increasing MJD from bottom to top, and normalized to the continuum. ships between subsets of the observations. This could potentially generate a non-gaussian distribution for the combined sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Continued. revised maximum RV semiamplitude variation from the culled sample of 34 km s−1 . Based on the findings in Pa￾per I, we adopt eccentricity e in the range 0.80 – 0.98, inclination i = 45◦ −90◦ , and current primary star mass M0 of 50 M⊙. Following I. Vargas-Salazar et al. (2025), we obtain lower limits on the companion mass of 6M⊙ and 8M⊙ for orbital periods P of 7.3 and 14.6 years, respectively. These va… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The top panel shows the radial velocity curve for AzV 493, and the bottom panels show the data in phase space assuming a 14.6-year (left) and 7.3-year period (right). Epochs A, D, E, I, and M2FS1 – M2FS3 are omitted from these data due to their large uncertainties (see…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial velocity distributions for AzV 493 based on the PoWR model template (left) and Epoch K template (right). The contributions of the high-uncertainty Epochs A, D, E, I, and M2FS1 – M2FS3 are marked by the hatched bars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5 2010

  2. [2]

    J., et al

    Antoniou, V., Zezas, A., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a7a Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, ...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a7a 2019

  3. [3]

    1975, A&AS, 22, 285

    Azzopardi, M., Vigneau, J., & Macquet, M. 1975, A&AS, 22, 285

    1975

  4. [4]

    C., Johnson, J

    Becker, J. C., Johnson, J. A., Vanderburg, A., & Morton, T. D. 2015, ApJS, 217, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/29 2015

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 641, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037640

    Bodensteiner, J., Shenar, T., & Sana, H. 2020, A&A, 641, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037640

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037640 2020

  7. [7]

    Boubert, D., & Evans, N. W. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5261, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty980

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty980 2018

  8. [8]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    O., Ho, W

    Brown, R. O., Ho, W. C. G., Coe, M. J., & Okazaki, A. T. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty973

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd04

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2025, ApJ, 987, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd04

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N

    Castro, N., Oey, M. S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6d0

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2009, AJ, 137, 3668, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3668

    Cignoni, M., Sabbi, E., Nota, A., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 3668, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3668

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    S., & Leep, E

    Conti, P. S., & Leep, E. M. 1974, ApJ, 193, 113, doi: 10.1086/153135

    1974 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Oey, M

    Dallas, M. M., Oey, M. S., & Castro, N. 2022, ApJ, 936, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8988 Dorigo Jones, J., Oey, M. S., Paggeot, K., Castro, N., &

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6b

    Moe, M. 2020, ApJ, 903, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6b

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2135

    Fuller, J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2135

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    B., Oey, M

    Golden-Marx, J. B., Oey, M. S., Lamb, J. B., Graus, A. S., & White, A. S. 2016, ApJ, 819, 55, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/55

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279, doi: 10.1086/376774

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/59

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2019, A&A, 621, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833787

    Hainich, R., Ramachandran, V., Shenar, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833787

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, Stars and Galaxies, 6, 1, doi: 10.32231/starsandgalaxies.6.0 1

    Katahira, J. 2023, Stars and Galaxies, 6, 1, doi: 10.32231/starsandgalaxies.6.0 1

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    1967, ZA, 65, 251

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1967, ZA, 65, 251

    1967

  19. [27]

    B., Oey, M

    Lamb, J. B., Oey, M. S., Segura-Cox, D. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/113

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Antoniou, V

    Laycock, S., Zezas, A., Hong, J., Drake, J. J., & Antoniou, V. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1217, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1217

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Valli, R., et al

    Lechien, T., de Mink, S. E., Valli, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfdd4

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Monachesi, A., Bell, E

    Nidever, D. L., Monachesi, A., Bell, E. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/145 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 730, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/70

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Castro, N., Renzo, M., et al

    Oey, M. S., Castro, N., Renzo, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb690

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3909

    Kothari, R. 2024, ApJ, 966, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3909

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Cote, J., Waters, L

    Pols, O. R., Cote, J., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Heise, J. 1991, A&A, 241, 419 Extreme Oe Variable AzV 49313

    1991

  27. [35]

    G., Jones, C

    Rast, R. G., Jones, C. E., Carciofi, A. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40a2

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Jones, C

    Rast, R. G., Jones, C. E., Suffak, M. W., & Carciofi, A. C. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf244

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    M., & Yap, B

    Razali, N. M., & Yap, B. W. 2011, J. Stat. Modeling & Analytics, 21

    2011

  30. [38]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c5

    Renzo, M., & G¨ otberg, Y. 2021, ApJ, 923, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29c5

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae40fc

    Sen, K., Renzo, M., Jin, H., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae40fc

    2026 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    Janka, H.-T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    K., & Szyma´ nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966 van der Meij, V., Guo, D., Kaper, L., & Renzo, M. 2021, A&A, 655, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040114

    2015 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    S., Eldridge, J

    Vargas-Salazar, I., Oey, M. S., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade523

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al

    Vinciguerra, S., Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2177

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Peters, G. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf144

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    E., & Heger, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 639, doi: 10.1086/526404

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.